THE PROBLEM OF POLARIZATION IN THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH
This is the title of one of the most important articles to appear in a Reformed periodical in the last while. Especially for the kind of people who read OUTLOOK.
The author is Prof. John Bolt of Redeemer College, Burlington, Ontario. The article appeared in the Oct. 22, 1984 issue of Christian Renewal. I understand that it was published as well in another Canada-based journal, Calvinist Contact.
Prof. Bolt is convinced that “polarization is a fact” in the CRC, and that “it is high time that our Reformed community comes to terms with the significant differences in its midst and learn to deal with these differences in a mature manner.” Issues which divide are listed as women in ecclesiastical office, nuclear weapons, capitalism, socialism and poverty, abortion and the Council of Christian Reformed Churches in Canada. To these, others might be added (membership in the World Council of Churches, reunion of the CRC and the Reformed Church of America, the doctrines of Scriptural authority and divine predestination, the proper observance of the Lord’s Day, the authority of the creeds and the church order, etc.).
For one who wishes to be “confessional” (honest in commitment to the creeds of the CRC in terms of the Form of Subscription, and that literally) much of Bolt’s article is encouraging. I am tempted to offer a run-down on the several points skillfully and effectively made in this piece, but this would be difficult to accomplish fairly (and conservatives have to be doubly careful on that score!)
Maybe the best thing to do is to record a few reactions, hoping that this will provoke more good discussion of this problem, and even stimulate some to read the entire article for themselves (maybe OUTLOOK ought to reprint it?).
1. Isn’t it rather naive to suggest that current tensions in the CRC are perhaps no more than “petty dissensions,” which will happily disappear in an atmosphere of Christian forbearance, tolerance and kindliness? For example: Are the 1984 women in ecclesiastical office decisions really reducible to a possibly biblical recognition of the diaconal office as something completely subordinate to the office of elder (as defended, say, by Prof. J. VanBruggen of Kampen in his recent book, Ambten in de Apostolische Kerk)? If so people like Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff of Calvin ColJege (a rather significant voice in the CRC, think) aren’t impressed. (“The effect of Synod’s action, then, is to acknowledge the exclusion of women from office as being without biblical and theological basis. And this means, I believe, that in the not–distant future women will be admitted to all offices.” Reformed Journal, August 1984, p. 3). In my experience the Wolterstorffs usually get their way at synod, sooner or later.
2 . The fact is that to many “conservatives” things are way past the “talk stage.” They often fee l that personally and politically they are not really of any significance in the CRC. They see all kinds of things which disturb them: liturgical innovationism far removed from the old Reformed principle that worship is principally “ministry of the Word,” all kinds of abuse of the sacraments, wide-spread and flagrant violations of the church order, ridicule of all who hold to the verbal inspiration of Scripture, the non-expository, topical sermon whose superficiality is only surpassed by its brevity; etc.
More could be added . In fact, several more important things have been omitted. My point is, I think that Dr. Bolt in his excellent contribution is more sanguine about the possibility of a truly spiritual oneness (Psalm 133) between those at opposite ends of the poles (even the non–extremists) than I am.
But I hope and pray that he is proved right!
Interpreting The Bible in Theology and the Church
Recommendatin and appreciation for a book by a Calvin College professor in this magazine might not be the biggest favor to its writer, but I’m going to offer it anyway. I think Henry Vander Goot, teacher of Bible and theology at the CRC’s largest college, has written something which deserves careful attention by all interested in and devoted to that wonderful book which is the Bible.
All Bible readers know that it isn’t always easy to grasp the meaning of the sacred Scriptures. Reading as such is often hard work. Bible reading involves an added dimension: spiritual discernment (I Cor. 2:13, 14).
The church has often yielded at this point to what seems to be a good and easy way out of this difficulty. Why not turn over “the job?”of interpreting Scripture to “the experts”? Surely scribes and Pharisees, theologians, priests, popes or ministers know much more about biblical matters than “we ordinary people” do! This may sound plausible (and even modest), but the consequences are disastrous, as anyone racing his spiritual heritage back to the Great Reformation of the 16th century knows of the people. God is able to send rain and He is able to withhold it. However, if they pray “toward,” not at this place or in this place, but in their homes with their faces toward Jerusalem, may the Lord forgive the sins of the king and of the people and send rain so that they may again be able to live in the land the Lord has given them.
Other Calamities
Besides war and drought, there are various other calamities which may come upon a land. King Solomon mention s several of them. If there be famine, often the result of drought, or if there be pestilence, blasting or mildew, locust or caterpillar, siege by an enemy or any other plague or sickness—if they repent and ask for forgiveness, may the Lord hear them. Famine came upon the land of Canaan several times during the course of sacred history despite the fact that this land was to be the land “flowing with milk and honey.” When the king mentions pestilence he is referring to a very contagious disease of that day (such as the black plague of the middle ages?) which revealed itself in boils. Blasting refers to the singeing of the grain by the dry hot wind blowing from the desert. Mildew was another disease of the grains. Solomon mentions locust and caterpillar, grasshoppers and other creatures which denude the fields of all vegetation. One land would often invade the other, besiege its cities and take the inhabitants captive. Finally the king does not distinguish between the various evils which may come but sums them up by speaking of whatsoever plague or sickness there be. But, if anyone or if the whole people turn to God in repentance, may He forgive. The speaker speaks of each experiencing the plague of his own heart his sin. Then he prays, “Lord, render to every man accord ing to all his ways. Let the penitent be spared.” God knows what is in their hearts. The hearts determine their actions. And now follows something different: “that they may fear Thee all the days that they live in the land which Thou gavest unto our fathers.” This “fear of God” is a concept which we find frequently in the Old Testament. It is our “faith” with its own connotation.
The Foreigner
When the Old Testament speaks of the “foreigner” it does not always refer to the same kind of people. The king is here not referring to the stranger who makes his home in Israel, but to the foreigner who comes and goes. He becomes acquainted with the ways of the Israelites and with their history and he also finds out about the greatness of Israel’s God. When such a person prays toward this place, may God hear him too. How ecumenical! That all the peoples of the earth may know Thy name!
At War
If His people go to battle against their enemies, whether at home or in other countries, when they pray toward this place, may God hear them and maintain their cause. Give them victory!
In Captivity
In the last petition Solomon deals with the worst situation which can befall a people. Previously there was not an indication of a complete captivity of His people, but that is considered in this petition. If they are taken out of their land because of their sin! He adds, “for there is no man that sinneth not.” This sentence has been explained in various ways. Surely, he does not mean it as an excuse. It is necessary to add these words because Israel may well be over-confident at the time when it is the strongest notion in that part of the world. If they in captivity come to a different insight and repent, if they acknowledge their sins before God and turn to Him with all their hearts and soul, if they then pray toward this land, toward this city and toward this house, may the Lord hear them and forgive, maintain their cause, and bring them back from captivity.
This is Solomon’s prayer. Let God now hear Solomon. The temple is dedicated and let God now arise to His dwelling place! This king does priestly work without violating the office of the priest as Uzziah later did. Solomon intercedes. That is his privilege and his duty. If this king will continue in this way, he may be sure that the Lord his God will remember His covenant and all the loving kindness which He had promised David. He will then not lack a son to sit upon his throne. Alas, Solomon didn’t stay on this height of commitment to God. This beautiful prayer must be applied to his heart as well as to the hearts of all who read this prayer.
Questions for Discussion:
1. How does Solomon overcome the difficulty of doing priestly work and not sinning by doing so? How were the kingly and priestly offices kept separate? 2. Does the temple in Jerusalem have more significance than our church buildings? Why, or, why not? 3. Does the enormity of the sin have anything to do with the possibility of forgiveness? Can a murderer, if he repents, be saved? Can one who is condemned by the state to the death penalty still be a “worthy partaker of the table of His Son”? How would this be possible? 4. Are there more ecumenical passages in the Old Testament? If there are, why are they so few? 5. Seeing God always forgives upon His people’s repentance, can this forgiveness become rather common place to us?